Nobody would disagree that Euthanasia is an enormously emotive and highly controversial topic.  But, as with that other even more contentious E-word (Eugenics), I have never understood why since we are all going to die one day soon, and ABSOLUTELY NOBODY wants to have to endure a long lingering and painful death.   Or suffer the ever-increasing incidence of dementia due to “modern medicine” ensuring that many people are living much longer lives – if not necessarily better lives – than nature apparently intended.   Surely it would be so much better if we could all simply “flip a switch” (or, more contentiously, have others flip it for us) than having to endure a long, painful and often very embarrassingly messy decline?   Not to mention the stress and anxiety put on those who have to endure the long drawn out decline of a loved one?   And the enormous cost to the NHS (or its equivalent in other countries) of these attempts to keep the living dead going for what is usually just a few extra months of “life”.  Although few would actually dare say so, in our private thoughts most would probably agree the funds and the resources spent on the old and infirm would be much better spent on younger and fitter people.

The concept of “human rights” has been extended to an absurd degree lately.  It now includes cradle to grave state benefits and social care – not to mention housing, piped water and electricity – but apparently also the right to what is euphemistically termed a “family life” and the right to be shielded by the law from “offensive opinions” like mine.   It seems only a matter of time before “human-rights” are extended to mobile phones, internet, electric vehicles, and who knows what else?   But, if anything should be a “human right”, SURELY it must be the right for every person to die painlessly and in dignity at a time of their own choosing..?  Every year in Europe alone millions of our beloved animal pets are “put down” when they are badly injured or become infirm, because we don’t want to see them suffer un-necessarily.  But, if we are to be brutally honest, the high COST of keeping our pets alive is the MAIN MOTIVE.  If  NHS treatment were extended to our pets, we would want to use public funds to keep them alive for as long as possible.     Veterinary services have to be paid for, whilst the NHS is free, or so we like to pretend..!   We often hear the phrase “THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE”.   But what is so different – or so special – about human lives when every living thing suffers disease and decline, even the most magnificent and long-lived trees..?

I am sure there must have been surveys, although I am not aware of any – but I would imagine that the great majority of us – even those who piously proclaim their ethical opposition to Euthanasia – would want to at least have the OPTION of ending their lives painlessly.  Even if, when the moment of truth finally comes, we will almost certainly delay “flipping the switch” (and delay it over and again) due to fear of the unknown.  Many of us would harbour the faint hope of a miracle cure which might allow us to live for another few years.  I recall reading somewhere that doctors have a statistically high incidence of suicide.  Could that be because, unlike us mere mortals, they have easy access to painless “suicide pills”?   Everyone likes the idea of living to a great age if only we could also maintain youthful virile bodies.  Why would anyone in a frail old body, delirious, demented, incontinent, racked with pain, and dependent on others to assist them with their excretions and to clean their bodies, REALLY want to live a day longer than necessary..?

At present only a handful of countries (and some federalised states) have legalised Euthanasia, and most of those are some form of “Passive” euthanasia (PE), IMO a half-hearted political cop-out.  As of 2016 , “Active” euthanasia (AE) is only legal in the 3 “Benelux” countries of Belgium, Netherlands, and Luxembourg (combined population less than 30 million). 

But even within those countries and states which have legalised it – however loaded with “safety clauses” and other caveats the “legalisation” is – many people remain stridently opposed for “religious and ethical” reasons.    Euthanasia divides and polarises society like few other issues.  (Brexit excepted of course)  As with “covid lockdowns” and compulsory face-masks, many people want to force others to adhere to their set of values.

Euthanasia "tourists" not welcome

No country wants to attract hordes of sick and dying people whose only reason for visiting is to DIE.. 

Aside from the religious and ethical objections, another reason why so few countries wish to allow euthanasia – is that if it were made easy and inexpensive and “on demand” (like abortion) – it would encourage millions of “Euthanasia tourists”.

Given autonomous political status and selective-admission, OA-Cities would be ideal places in which to trial AE and also help allay the (often justified) fear that covetous offspring might want to bump-off their wealthy parents.  Of course each euthanasia request would need to be properly investigated to determine motive, just as we have coroner reports.  “Euthanasia tourism” or citizenship applications with that motive in mind could be discouraged by a stipulation that AE/EOD would only be possible after, say, 5 years of residence.

ZERO INHERITANCE CITIES..?

Since one of the main arguments against AE is the risk that greedy offspring might contrive excuses to pre-emptively “pull the plug” on their ailing but wealthy parents – some OA-Cities might want to have a “Zero Inheritance” clause in its charter, or one that limits legacies to a specified maximum amount.

---

Postscript (April 2022): re Lionel Shriver’s recent book “Should we stay or should we go” – this review on Amazon.co.uk sums up the philosophy of the book –

This is a curious book that grew on me. To start, I became frustrated when the time loop took over, but after a few iterations, I appreciated the thought-provoking value in the different scenarios. Shriver has obviously put masses of thought into end of life possibilities. I found myself thinking deeply about each version, wondering what I would do in each situation. As someone who watched parents and parents-in-law die in different ways, I have often thought that suicide, e.g. at 80, would make sense. This book makes you think through the pros and cons of doing this, and also of many alternative options. It is not an instantly gripping read, but it is one that will stay with me for a very long time. As someone who believes it better to eat a small amount of a treat, stopping whilst still wanting more, rather than stuffing until I feel I’ve eaten too much of a good thing, I think life may be similar – better to stop whilst still wanting more, before one has lived too long and grown tired of the pain that old age so often brings.   If only it was an easier decision to actually put into practice!

---